Monday, July 21, 2008

New Column: Stop Terror's Next Act

Obama, Iraq, the caliphate, Afghanistan and a massive terrorist attack on Europe. It's all here in today's column: Stop Terror's Next Act.

Here's an excerpt:

And now that they have been defeated in Iraq — anyone saying otherwise is either clueless or being purposely mendacious — America has in fact achieved something far greater than a military victory: America's soldiers have smashed the nascent state of the caliphate; the dream is no more. This is a fate far worse than death for the jihadists, who enthusiastically embrace dying for their cause of resurrecting an Islamic empire as a noble act of martyrdom. Should Mr. bin Laden be killed or captured, then he would remain an undiminished hero in their eyes; while Americans may think that this would count as victory, the jihadists may simply shrug it off. However, seeing their state collapse in Iraq is their own nadir of demoralization and ideological defeat.

I wonder if Mr. Obama understands all of that. Keeping troops in Iraq is not an end unto itself, yet victory is. Stationing more troops than are necessary to maintain the fruits of victory was never one of America's war aims. Victory is easily defined as having a democratic and independent state of Iraq (check) and preventing another "Islamic State of Iraq" (check).

Prime Minister Maliki recently welcomed Mr. Obama's withdrawal plan with caveats and this sent the usual pundits a-twitter, but whereas Mr. Obama was thinking in terms of retreat, Mr. Maliki on the other hand was suggesting the natural outcome of victory: that America's soldiers, who had fought a hard won yet incidental battle against the ultimate jihadist aim of resurrecting an Islamic Empire, could go home with laurels and to acclaim.

I also wonder whether the European crowds cheering Mr. Obama and giving him a super-star's welcome this week understand the implications of victory in Iraq. Sadly for them, the jihadists are not going to give up especially now that they have something more to prove after the humiliation of losing their state: the jihadists intend to hit the reset button on worldwide jihad by launching painful attacks on Europe, and these painful attacks will involve whatever weapons of mass destruction they can get their hands on.

The issue of full, rounded military capacity and the threats in the neighborhood will remain beyond 2010 or 2011, however. Whether it's Maliki, McCain, or Oblabla, none are currently acknowledging that adequate armor, air and logistics are quite a bit further off than that. In terms of "normal" experience levels for noncoms and officers at every level, it will be at least a decade before Iraq can come up to standard. There are some things that just can't be "fast-tracked".

Brian h, you are correct that there is no way Iraq will be ready to stand on its own by 2010. We have to give Nibras credit when he stated that Iraqi politics will have more influence on US politics than vice versa. Maliki has just given Obama a big boost to become President. Maliki is smart enough to know that a President Obama will never send US troops back to Iraq if trouble brews, so one might ask why would he do such a thing? The is that Maliki knows that Iran will be Iraqs protector and main friend if the Kurds decide to declare their independence and/or the Sunni rebel against the unfair treatment by the Shia. Nibras knows that the Shia Theocracy will complete the the crecent from Iran to Iraq to Syria to Lebanon, and that will mark the rise of the Shia taking over the Muslim world.